Posted by toddcommish on 2/14/2013 2:27:00 PM (view original):This thread has gone from a murderer (Ray Lewis) who got away with it... all the way to a metaphysical discussion around creation/big bang cosmology.

Posted by toddcommish on 2/14/2013 2:27:00 PM (view original):This thread has gone from a murderer (Ray Lewis) who got away with it... all the way to a metaphysical discussion around creation/big bang cosmology.

Then at some point the Big Bang occurs and the quarks are blasted out in all directions, based on essentially a random fluctuation.

Here's where things become much simpler.

You say these quarks somehow existed "outside of time" and yet you also say "AT SOME POINT", which means a definitive point IN TIME.

I've never heard anyone other than you claim the Big Bang calls for quarks outside of time. Perhaps its possible many people simply don't know that or omit it, but everyone I've heard describe the Big Bang theory says it suggests a finite beginning point for the universe, specifically the moment the "big bang" itself occurred. This makes much more logical sense than "quarks outside of time".

Then at some point the Big Bang occurs and the quarks are blasted out in all directions, based on essentially a random fluctuation.

Here's where things become much simpler.

You say these quarks somehow existed "outside of time" and yet you also say "AT SOME POINT", which means a definitive point IN TIME.

I've never heard anyone other than you claim the Big Bang calls for quarks outside of time. Perhaps its possible many people simply don't know that or omit it, but everyone I've heard describe the Big Bang theory says it suggests a finite beginning point for the universe, specifically the moment the "big bang" itself occurred. This makes much more logical sense than "quarks outside of time".

Time (as we know it) is a function of our universe, but our universe was made up things that existed before the universe began. In other words the universe has a finite beginning, but the things within the universe existed before that finite beginning. That is what the Big Bang Theory states, you obviously either don't understand it or have been misinformed.

“If you think about that, somehow saying that, well, anything goes, we shouldn’t offend religious beliefs by requiring kids to know – to understand reality; that’s child abuse,” Krauss said in a video published by Big Think earlier in February. “And if you think about it, teaching kids – or allowing the notion that the earth is 6,000 years old to be promulgated in schools is like teaching kids that the distance across the United States is 17 feet. That’s how big an error it is.”

At Pakman's prompting, Krauss explained that he's sticking by his earlier comments, despite their potential for controversy.

“Sure, it is mild child abuse, but it is [child abuse],” Krauss said. “We need to encourage our children to question freely and try to think for themselves. Anything we do that counters that is unfair to them.”

The scientist went on to draw a connection between teaching creationism in school.

“If you’re introducing it as reality, if you’re telling your kids the world is 6,000 years old, and they shouldn’t believe scientists because there is no way humans are related to other animals, and don’t believe any of that stuff you learned in school, or take you kids of out of school because they are learning something, then it is like the Taliban at some level, which is an extreme form of child abuse,” Krauss said. “The Taliban doesn’t want girls to be educated or people to be educated because if they do they’ll understand the myths that they are learning are crap.”

Recently, some scientists, including Bill Nye, have been ramping up their criticisms of creationism.

In September, Nye told the Associated Press: "The Earth is not 6,000 or 10,000 years old. It's not. And if that conflicts with your beliefs, I strongly feel you should question your beliefs."

Nye was later joined by an unexpected ally in the creationism debate: Pat Robertson, a prominent American evangelical. In November, Robertson said Christians should not try to "cover up" evidence that proves the age of the Earth is not a several thousand years old.

"If you fight science," Robertson said, "you're going to lose your children, and I believe in telling it the way it was."

“We need to encourage our children to question freely and try to think for themselves. Anything we do that counters that is unfair to them. But, for ****'s sake, don't teach creationism to them. That's just bullshit. But, other than that, we need to let our children think for themselves.”

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/15/2013 10:36:00 AM (view original):“We need to encourage our children to question freely and try to think for themselves. Anything we do that counters that is unfair to them. But, for ****'s sake, don't teach creationism to them. That's just bullshit. But, other than that, we need to let our children think for themselves.”

Mike, that guy is clearly an ***. But when you click on the last link you posted, what's the first word? "Anti-science." That's the point. If you want to teach creationism, fine, but it's not science, and that's where scientists get upset. Make sure that these kids understand that this idea is religious in nature. The evidence that science presents supports evolution. The evidence that creationists present is that evolution is too complex, it can't happen. That isn't evidence for any other theory, it's evidence against a theory.

,Bistiza, it is as I supposed - the people you have heard describe the Big Bang as a finite, discrete beginning to the existence of anything are trying to teach it on a level that is approachable to people outside the scientific community. This most recent post confirms that. The statement "All the components of the universe could not possibly exist before they came into existence. At some point they all had to begin" could not be further from the truth. Very few physicists, even the most out there guys describing the Big Bang, would argue that the Big Bang dramatically violated the First Law of Thermodynamics. If at any moment the building blocks of the universe did not exist, they could never exist. It would violate the general conservation principle upon which all physics is founded. Prior to the Big Bang everything was concentrated in one infinitesimal point in space, and there was no time because our conception of time is governed by the kinetics of our universe. But as I mentioned in my previous post, not only is it generally agreed upon that the building blocks of the universe - maybe quarks and leptons, quite possibly something even smaller - existed prior to the Big Bang, but outside anything that fits our conception of time since space-time wasn't generated until the Big Bang BUT most string theorists and some other theoretical physicists believe it is not only possible but likely that our present universe is not the first, that it was likely preceded by different universes. These may have been dominated by antimatter rather than matter, or otherwise been dissimilar from our own, but still built from the same basic stuff. If the building blocks of matter and energy have existed in universes prior to this one, you can't possibly argue that they just appeared. They were already there. There just wasn't time.

Teaching children how to think critically for themselves is one of the most important things they can learn in school.

I help my son with his homework just about every night, for whatever subject he's looking to me for. I always try to make sure that my helping is more of a guidance of him in the right direction, or talking through the issue or problem, so that he can get to the answer himself.

That said.if for a given topic there are multiple competing theories, such as evolution vs. creationsim, my thoughts are that appropriate time and emphasis should be placed on each theory according to the probability or likelihood of the validity of each theory, based on the amount of credible evidence to support it.

If two theories have similar amounts of evidence to support them (or discredit the other), then they should be taught side by side, with equal emphasis on both.

But if one theory has a preponderance of credible scientific evidence to support it, while the other does not, then the supported theory should be the primary one taught, with the explanation that it is most likely to be correct. I'd have no problem with the other theory being mentioned as a competing theory, but certainly not to the same degree.

While I certainly wouldn't consider teaching creationism in public schools to be "child abuse" (that's a bit strong), I would say that giving it more than a just passing mention as an alternate theory to evolution would be grossly irresponsible, and a great disservice on the part of the education system to the children.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/15/2013 10:36:00 AM (view original):“We need to encourage our children to question freely and try to think for themselves. Anything we do that counters that is unfair to them. But, for ****'s sake, don't teach creationism to them. That's just bullshit. But, other than that, we need to let our children think for themselves.”

Mike, that guy is clearly an ***. But when you click on the last link you posted, what's the first word? "Anti-science." That's the point. If you want to teach creationism, fine, but it's not science, and that's where scientists get upset. Make sure that these kids understand that this idea is religious in nature. The evidence that science presents supports evolution. The evidence that creationists present is that evolution is too complex, it can't happen. That isn't evidence for any other theory, it's evidence against a theory.

That wasn't my point. An "authority", I guess, is rambling on about letting children think for themselves while saying "Don't teach that." It's hypocritical bullshit. IOW, a page from "How to be a Science *******" handbook. It's annoying.

I don't particularly care if evolution/creationism is taught to 7-8 year olds. I imagine math, reading and the like are more important than those things at that age. But don't act like an enlightened free-thinker while saying "Don't teach that. That's like saying the US is 17 miles wide."

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/15/2013 10:36:00 AM (view original):“We need to encourage our children to question freely and try to think for themselves. Anything we do that counters that is unfair to them. But, for ****'s sake, don't teach creationism to them. That's just bullshit. But, other than that, we need to let our children think for themselves.”

Mike, that guy is clearly an ***. But when you click on the last link you posted, what's the first word? "Anti-science." That's the point. If you want to teach creationism, fine, but it's not science, and that's where scientists get upset. Make sure that these kids understand that this idea is religious in nature. The evidence that science presents supports evolution. The evidence that creationists present is that evolution is too complex, it can't happen. That isn't evidence for any other theory, it's evidence against a theory.

That wasn't my point. An "authority", I guess, is rambling on about letting children think for themselves while saying "Don't teach that." It's hypocritical bullshit. IOW, a page from "How to be a Science *******" handbook. It's annoying.

I don't particularly care if evolution/creationism is taught to 7-8 year olds. I imagine math, reading and the like are more important than those things at that age. But don't act like an enlightened free-thinker while saying "Don't teach that. That's like saying the US is 17 miles wide."

I understand it wasn't your point. I was making my own. I agree the guy is an ***.

I don't think the age of the children is relevant. If a 16 year old is taught both evolution and creationism in their biology class, I have a problem with it.